Download PDF
Semin Hear 2011; 32(1): 090-102
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1271950
© Thieme Medical Publishers

Consonant Perception by Adults with Bimodal Fitting

Paola V. Incerti1 , 2 , Teresa Y.C Ching1 , 2 , Amanda Hill3
  • 1National Acoustic Laboratories, Chatswood, Australia
  • 2The Hearing Cooperative Research Centre, Australia
  • 3The Sydney Cochlear Implant Centre, Australia
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
22 March 2011 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Many adults who receive a cochlear implant in one ear have usable residual hearing in the opposite ear. The simultaneous use of a cochlear implant (CI) and a hearing aid (HA) in the contralateral ear, or bimodal fitting, provides the recipient with potentially complementary information to the auditory system for speech perception, localization, and functional benefits in everyday life via two different modes of stimulation (acoustic and electric). This study investigated consonant perception in listeners who use bimodal fitting with the aim to identify the acoustic cues responsible for speech understanding when an HA is used together with a CI in comparison with the use of a CI alone. The results showed that on average, there was significant improvement in consonant recognition in quiet and in noise when adults wore CIs with HAs compared with CIs alone. Feature analysis of consonants was performed to directly examine what additional cues were provided by the HA to enhance consonant perception. This analysis showed that on average, there was a significant increase in reception of information about voicing in quiet conditions and about voicing and manner of articulation in noise. There was no difference in the transmission of information about place of articulation. The implications of these findings on rehabilitation of adults with unilateral CI are discussed.

KEYWORDS

Bimodal fitting - consonant perception

REFERENCES

  • 1 Gifford R H, Dorman M F, Shallop J K, Sydlowski S A. Evidence for the expansion of adult cochlear implant candidacy.  Ear Hear. 2010;  31 (2) 186-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ching T YC, van Wanrooy E, Dillon H. Binaural-bimodal fitting or bilateral implantation for managing severe to profound deafness: a review.  Trends Amplif. 2007;  11 (3) 161-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Potts L G, Skinner M W, Litovsky R A, Strube M J, Kuk F. Recognition and localization of speech by adult cochlear implant recipients wearing a digital hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear (bimodal hearing).  J Am Acad Audiol. 2009;  20 (6) 353-373
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ching T YC, Incerti P V, Hill M. Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears.  Ear Hear. 2004;  25 (1) 9-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dunn C C, Tyler R S, Witt S A. Benefit of wearing a hearing aid on the unimplanted ear in adult users of a cochlear implant.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005;  48 (3) 668-680
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hamzavi J, Pok S M, Gstoettner W, Baumgartner W D. Speech perception with a cochlear implant used in conjunction with a hearing aid in the opposite ear.  Int J Audiol. 2004;  43 (2) 61-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Iwaki T, Matsushiro N, Mah S R et al. Comparison of speech perception between monaural and binaural hearing in cochlear implant patients.  Acta Otolaryngol. 2004;  124 (4) 358-362
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kong Y Y, Stickney G S, Zeng F G. Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2005;  117 (3 Pt 1) 1351-1361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Luntz M, Shpak T, Weiss H. Binaural-bimodal hearing: concomitant use of a unilateral cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid.  Acta Otolaryngol. 2005;  125 (8) 863-869
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Morera C, Manrique M, Ramos A et al. Advantages of binaural hearing provided through bimodal stimulation via a cochlear implant and a conventional hearing aid: a 6-month comparative study.  Acta Otolaryngol. 2005;  125 (6) 596-606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Mok M, Grayden D, Dowell R C, Lawrence D. Speech perception for adults who use hearing aids in conjunction with cochlear implants in opposite ears.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2006;  49 (2) 338-351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ching T YC, Psarros C, Hill M, Dillon H, Incerti P. Should children who use cochlear implants wear hearing aids in the opposite ear?.  Ear Hear. 2001;  22 (5) 365-380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ching T YC, Hill M, Dillon H, van Wanrooy E. Fitting and evaluating a hearing aid for recipients of a unilateral cochlear implant: the NAL approach. Part1.  Hear Rev. 2004;  11 (7) 14-22.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Qin M K, Oxenham A J. Effects of introducing unprocessed low-frequency information on the reception of envelope-vocoder processed speech.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;  119 (4) 2417-2426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kong Y Y, Carlyon R P. Improved speech recognition in noise in simulated binaurally combined acoustic and electric stimulation.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;  121 (6) 3717-3727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Brown C A, Bacon S P. Achieving electric-acoustic benefit with a modulated tone.  Ear Hear. 2009;  30 (5) 489-493
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Zhang T, Dorman M F, Spahr A J. Information from the voice fundamental frequency (F0) region accounts for the majority of the benefit when acoustic stimulation is added to electric stimulation.  Ear Hear. 2010;  31 (1) 63-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ching T YC. The evidence calls for making binaural-bimodal fittings routine.  Hear J. 2005;  58 (11) 32-41
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ching T YC, Incerti P, Hill M, van Wanrooy E. An overview of binaural advantages for children and adults who use binaural/bimodal hearing devices.  Audiol Neurootol. 2006;  11 (Suppl 1) 6-11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Offeciers E, Morera C, Müller J, Huarte A, Shallop J, Cavallé L. International consensus on bilateral cochlear implants and bimodal stimulation.  Acta Otolaryngol. 2005;  125 (9) 918-919
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Dubno J R, Dirks D D. Evaluation of hearing-impaired listeners using a Nonsense-Syllable Test. I. Test reliability.  J Speech Hear Res. 1982;  25 (1) 135-141
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kiefer J, von Ilberg C, Rupprecht V, Hubner-Egner J, Knecht R. Optimized speech understanding with the continuous interleaved sampling speech coding strategy in patients with cochlear implants: effect of variations in stimulation rate and number of channels.  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2000;  109 (11) 1009-1020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Skinner M W, Holden L K, Whitford L A, Plant K L, Psarros C, Holden T A. Speech recognition with the nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS speech coding strategies in newly implanted adults.  Ear Hear. 2002;  23 (3) 207-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Välimaa T T, Määttä T K, Löppönen H J, Sorri M J. Phoneme recognition and confusions with multichannel cochlear implants: consonants.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;  45 (5) 1055-1069
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Loizou P C, Poroy O, Dorman M. The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;  108 (2) 790-802
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Henshall K R, McKay C M. Optimizing electrode and filter selection in cochlear implant speech processor maps.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2001;  12 (9) 478-489
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Gfeller K, Turner C, Oleson J et al. Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition, and speech reception in noise.  Ear Hear. 2007;  28 (3) 412-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Teoh S W, Neuburger H S, Svirsky M A. Acoustic and electrical pattern analysis of consonant perceptual cues used by cochlear implant users.  Audiol Neurootol. 2003;  8 269-285
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Dooley G J, Blamey P J, Seligman P M et al. Combined electrical and acoustical stimulation using a bimodal prosthesis.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1993;  119 (1) 55-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ching T YC, Psarros C, Hill M. Hearing aid benefit for children who switched from the SPEAK to the ACE Strategy in their contralateral Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System.  Aust N Z J Audiol. 2000;  22 (2) 123-132
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Dillon H. NAL-NL1: a new prescriptive fitting procedure for non-linear hearing aids.  Hear J. 1999;  52 (4) 10-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Dillon H. In: Hearing Aids. New York, NY: Thieme; 2001: 383-385
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Cox R M, DeChicchis A R, Wark D J. Demonstration of binaural advantage in audiometric test rooms.  Ear Hear. 1981;  2 (5) 194-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Studebaker G A. A “rationalized” arcsine transform.  J Speech Hear Res. 1985;  28 (3) 455-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Miller G, Nicely P. An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1955;  27 (2) 338-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Wang M. SINFA: Multivariate analysis for confusion matrices.  Behav Res Meth Instrum. 1976;  8 471-472
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 van Dijk J E, van Olphen A F, Langereis M C, Mens L H, Brokx J P, Smoorenburg G F. Predictors of cochlear implant performance.  Audiology. 1999;  38 (2) 109-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Dorman M F, Loizou P C, Rainey D. Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1997;  102 (4) 2403-2411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Loizou P C, Poroy O, Dorman M. The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;  108 (2) 790-802
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Shannon R V, Zeng F G, Wygonski J. Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1998;  104 (4) 2467-2476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Carlyon R P, Deeks J M. The upper limit of temporal pitch for cochlear-implant listeners: stimulus duration, conditioner pulses, and the number of electrodes stimulated.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;  127 (3) 1469-1478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Boothroyd A. Auditory perception of speech contrasts by subjects with sensorineural hearing loss .  J Speech Hear Res. 1984;  27 134-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Pedley K, Lind C, Hunt P. Adult Aural Rehabilitation Manual. Cochlear Ltd. N30975f ISS1 (Part no Z60413) 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Perreau A E, Tyler R S, Witt S, Dunn C. Selection strategies for binaural and monaural cochlear implantation.  Am J Audiol. 2007;  16 (2) 85-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Cowan R, Chin-Lenn J. Pattern and prevalence of hearing aid use post-implantation in adult cochlear implant users.  Aust N Z J Audiol. 2004;  26 (Suppl) 48
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Fitzpatrick E M, Séguin C, Schramm D, Chenier J, Armstrong S. Users' experience of a cochlear implant combined with a hearing aid.  Int J Audiol. 2009;  48 (4) 172-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Paola IncertiM.Aud. 

National Acoustic Laboratories, 126 Greville Street

Chatswood NSW 2067, Australia

Email: Paola.Incerti@nal.gov.au

      >